Wednesday, June 30, 2010

I don’t understand why we take a guy like Robert Byrd and make him a hero. He’s dead – I for one am glad. Were he to have died a decade ago the country would have saved billions of dollars. Had he died several decades ago, we would have saved tens of billions of dollars. It is said that West Virginians received $1.75 of government largess for every $1.00 they paid in taxes and it was all due to Robert Byrd. He is the poster child for what is wrong with the Senate and the government in general. Robert Byrd was onboard with every excess of Congress as well as the more recent abuses of power. It sickens me that his name is on scores of projects that “we the people” paid for and projects that bloated National budgets and indebted our progeny.

Robert Byrd was the ultimate con-artist and the ultimate con is being played out in the news now. Most would opine that his only flaws were his time as a Ku Klux Klansman and his deep inner demons of racism that he never mastered. I could live with that – but his most lasting legacy will be the theft of tens of billions that helped bankrupt the country.

As with other life-long Democrats (liberals, progressives, socialists, whatever) he was demonstrably wrong about everything. Robert Byrd – we should have gotten rid of you long ago. Like Teddy Kennedy you deserve neither our respect nor our sorrow at your passing. I hope we can get rid of the other scumbags in November.

The confrontation between General Stanley McChrystal and President Barack Obama is still front page news.Having served under both Republican and Democrat administrations, I can tell you this tension was predictable.

I have no scientific polling data, but the general consensus in the military was that President Jimmy Carter was a buffoon.Carter has gone on to validate that belief in any number of venues.It was tough serving in an administration where cost cutting and appeasement were the word of the day.

Serving under President Bill Clinton was depressing.Before becoming Commander-in-Chief Clinton had misrepresented his intentions to ROTC authorities as a subterfuge to avoid the draft and maintain his political viability.We served under a man who would have faced court martial had he been one of us.An officer in the uniformed services who had extra-martial sex with a subordinate would have been cashiered at the very least.On two occasions I directed subordinates to stop making fun of the President.We couldn’t prevent disgust with Clinton, but we could camouflage it.

Now Obama comes on the National scene.To most military men he is absurdly out of place.As a young man he professed and supported an ideology that would have prevented him from getting a security clearance had he not been elected to high office.Indeed Sal Alinsky and Alinsky-inspired community organizers are by their very definition “domestic enemies” that officers like McChrystal are sworn to defend the country against.Talk about irony.

We loved Ronald Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43.Detect a pattern?

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t think that General McChrystal showed good judgment.But it is ironic that a guy who dedicated his life to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” was brought down by a guy who has spent his life attacking the Constitution and tearing down the Nation that it created.As we approach the next election cycle remember that Democrats do not strengthen American security they just confuse and confound the people charged with keeping us safe.

Monday, June 28, 2010

I thought that President Obama couldn’t have made a worse appointment for the Supreme Court than Sonia Sotomayor – I was wrong. Elena Kagan is not only out of the mainstream, she isn’t even on the same planet as the rest of us. I can’t think of anyone less qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice than some who spent the majority of her life in the rarified air of American academia. There is no way to justify appointing a person with so little regard for the law to the highest court in the land. I urge you to vote against her appointment. Were you to confirm Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court it would be a grave travesty of justice. Vote No on Elena Kagan.

Friday, June 25, 2010

The recent flap over the comments by General McChrystal will inevitably draw comparisons between President Obama and his generals and President Lincoln and his generals. That is an interesting study.

Lincoln started with Irving McDowell who didn’t really want to fight. He was defeated at the First Battle of Manassas. George McClellan followed. “Little Mac” was a master organizer and manager, but he didn’t want to fight either. Little Mac got two shots at it and then got fired. Lincoln tried Ambrose Burnside and Joseph Hooker who had each shown a willingness to fight, but they didn’t have the intellect or temperament for high command. Then Lincoln found Ulysses Grant. He was a fighter and he had the intellect for high command. But most of all, Grant shared Lincoln’s ultimate goal – they both wanted to defeat the enemy and win the war.

In my opinion, President Obama wanted George McClellan but he got Ulysses Grant. Obama wanted his own “Little Mac” to manage his way out of Afghanistan. However General McChrystal wants to beat the Taliban and win in Afghanistan. This was never destined to be the kind working arrangement that Lincoln had with Grant. The difference between the two Presidents is stark – Lincoln was kicking his generals in the butt while Obama is reining his in. The Obama-McChrystal clash was inevitable.

I don’t know General McChrystal but he appears to have the requisite organizing skills, he is a respected leader, and he wants to fight. I don’t think we need a different general, we need a better commander-in-chief. The problem is that it took decades for McChrystal to become a good general; Obama doesn’t have that kind of time and he hasn’t exhibited the desire to learn.

Certainly McChrystal’s comments were indiscrete and that is all he should apologize for – being indiscrete. Some of his comments were sophomoric and crude, but then I’m sure he is aware of what we were saying about Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton in their day.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

As we approach the November Congressional elections we should consider the predictions of the various pundits and broadcasters to determine which have the best track record in forecasting the potential success or failure of political candidates. President Obama has shown an addiction to reckless spending and a bias against free market capitalism. He rammed through a health care bill expressly against the will of the American people and he will attack Arizona for its stand against illegal immigration contrary to the opinion of American citizens. However his lack of ability has never been as obvious as when his administration cruised from ignorance, to neglect, and finally to incompetence in the executive approach to the Gulf oil disaster.

Back in the spring and summer of 2008 the airwaves were full of oracles from left and right. One body of pundits proved eerily accurate while one body was horribly wrong. With uncanny precision the current state of America under Barack Obama was forecast two years ago by Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin among others. Conversely, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Mika Brzezinski and their liberal cousins were all completely wrong.

Consider the predictive powers of James Carville who arrogantly wrote “40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation.” Their “rule” will not survive 2 years much less 40. Compare that with Jerome Corsi’s “The Obama Nation,” Who proved to be the more accurate prophet?

Even Hillary Clinton had a better view of Barack Obama’s potential than the mainstream media. Remember the question as to who would be ready for the 3:00 AM call? Tragically we know now who proved to be completely unprepared.

We all get to vote again in November. Based on their track record, you are more likely to get better advice from Chris Plante (WMAL) than Alan Colmes (WFRB). You can listen to the right and act accordingly or you can hear them say “I told you so” again in 2011 as we wallow in misery.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

The irony in the BP $20 billion shakedown is stunning. If CEO Tony Hayward had snuck into our country illegally and killed someone at high-noon in Times Square with one thousand witnesses he would be better off now than as the CEO of an International corporation. In the murder scenario were someone to call him a “murderer” instead of an “alleged murderer” liberal groups and the press would rise up in his defense. The point is that BP isn’t guilty of anything – yet. However they have been tried and convicted by the current thugocracy and extorted for $20 Billion. This happened even as BP has flooded the South with claims processors and has been paying claims. The ultimate irony is that BP was also shook-down to cover claims of oil workers put out of work by the wholly unnecessary and ill advised decision by the President to halt further drilling. That decision may ultimately be more ruinous to the Gulf economy than the spill.

No doubt BP is guilty of something, but they might only be guilty of cutting corners or looking to achieve efficiencies to speed the drilling process. It might rise to the level of a crime and then again it might not. Certainly in the poisonous atmosphere being created by the left and the media it is inconceivable that BP will get a fair trial. Someone will hold up an oil-soaked pelican and reason will go right out the window. Certainly governmental action would have been necessary had BP refused to step up to the plate and assume responsibility for both the spill and the recovery, but that hasn’t happened. Regardless of how reckless they might have been in drilling, they have been pretty good corporate citizens in the response to the disaster. It might be fun to hate or taunt successful people like Tony Hayward in a Stalinesque show trial or in press conferences, but it has done nothing to stem the flow of oil. It no doubt alienates the people best positioned to solve the problem right now. What a difference it would have made to have approached this as a team effort from “day one” rather than the petulant and ineffective way our President chose to approach the problem.

What is truly chilling is that we now live in a country where the rule of law has no effect on the people charged to defend and enact the law. The government engineered a bankruptcy settlement without regard to the legal rights of GM and Chrysler bond holders. Now the government is taking advantage of yet another emergency to create a massive slush fund. No doubt some of this money will go to victims of the oil spill but this government hasn’t been a good steward of any of the other money they have begged, borrowed, or stolen – what makes you think their administration of this $20 Billion will be any different?

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

I listened to the President’s speech Tuesday night on the radio as I was driving. I heard it a second time in the hotel room I spent the night in. It was a total load of crap.

I wonder when it is going to dawn on Barack that when he rails against the abuses of the last “decade” that nearly two of those years now belong to him. I wonder if he will stop blaming folks like Dick Cheney and Halliburton now that we found out that if BP had followed the Halliburton plan, we might not have had this problem.

Barack looked a little peaked today – maybe it is dawning on him that being an adult is pretty hard sometimes. He didn’t understand before that most people don’t screw up because they want to, but rather because they fall short of a laudable goal. However socialists like Barack and his band screw up because they are pursuing the wrong goal the wrong way.

I’ll tell you – I might have to generate some sympathy for old Barack except that he wanted this job. He fought for this job and he cheated to get this job. I wonder who he is going to blame for that? Bill Ayers? Jeremiah Wright? David Axlerod? Chris Matthews? Michelle Obama? I mean think about it – is there any doubt in your mind that Hilary Clinton would have done a much better job on the oil spill than Barack Obama? I can’t stand Hillary Clinton. I don’t agree with her on anything (we might share the same opinion of Bill Clinton though) but it’s hard to see how she could have been a worse President than Barack Obama has proven to be. She could definitely give him man-up lessons.

I’ll bet that when the White House is turned over to its new occupant in 2013 the happiest person on the planet will be Barack Hussein Obama. Maybe he should think of resigning. If Barrack turned the White House over to Joe Biden, we wouldn’t get anything done, but Joe would give us all plenty of comic relief.

Sunday, June 13, 2010

I would like to find one of these supposed “experts” who continue to be baffled by the performance of the economy. Maybe, just maybe it is because if you let your ideology overwhelm your common sense so you can’t figure these trends out. The Washington Times covered a recent study that indicates liberals are generally uninformed about economic issues (See Liberals livid over economic enlightenment gauge). So if you are a liberal, it appears that you can’t also be an “expert” on the economy. So if you voted for Barack Obama for President and you are trying to figure out what is happening in the economy, you are going to continued to be surprised.

As the Amateur-in-Chief and his merry band of socialists continue to savage our economy, is it any wonder that people and corporations aren’t spending? As I watch the news roll out there are any number of troubling themes:

-ABC News reports that Corporations are hording as much as $1.6 trillion because of the uncertainty caused by these knuckleheads in Washington. How high will taxes go? What is in the Health Care bill? What other damage will Democrats do?

-Some believe that the economic activity that is occurring is being driven by the fear of what will happen as taxes go up and regulation comes crashing down next year. Essentially, spend it now so the government doesn’t get it in 2011.

-Retail Sales are down – this is a catastrophe since 2/3 of the economy is driven by consumer spending. I know I’m keeping what I have instead of making any major purchases. Worse, some economic activity might be driven by government programs for cars, caulkers, and home buyers that have or will soon end. That pulls in pent up demand and then whipsaws back to when the incentives are removed.

-Jobless rates remain stubbornly high and we had another “unexpected” rise in job losses. If the government continues sucking money out of the economy, jobless rates will remain high expectedly or not.

-No one believes the lie about a recovery any more. The most recent figures in May claimed the “economy” added 431,000 new jobs. However under closer scrutiny it turns out that 411,000 of them were temporary census jobs. Since we need at least 100,000 new jobs each month just to hire the new people who are entering the work force – this “good news” was actually a net loss of 80,000 jobs.

-Every problem is another excuse for another socialist program. In Obama’s world, the oil leak requires an end to drilling (good bye jobs) and energizes the call for Cap and Trade (hello taxes).

-Increasingly it is obvious that regardless of your political opinion, the Obama recovery is infinitely worse than the Bush recession. This isn’t a surprise as the Great Depression of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was infinitely worse and much longer than the Depression suffered under Hebert Hoover. Ending the FDR depression required World War II – we can end the Obama recession with a couple elections – I hope.

Now President Obama has stated that we are at a “critical juncture” in the recovery – really? You think that up all by yourself did you? Well tripling down on the huge deficits that you have created isn’t going to get us relief. Cutting a measly 5% from Federal spending (we don’t have a budget yet to corral spending) isn’t going to do it either when you are borrowing one out of every three dollars that you spend. Listen Jimmy . . . . . . err . . . uh . . . . Barack, you better slash spending by at least 40% and cut taxes unless you want to join Jimmy Carter in building crappy houses for poor people to try and salvage your miserable reputation.

Monday, June 7, 2010

After much reflection, I have a bipartisan solution guaranteed to save the Obama Administration and fix the Gulf Oil spill. The President should swallow his pride and call former Vice President Dick Cheney to the White House. He should ask Cheney to “Plug the damn hole.” For this to work, Obama must support Cheney with the full authority and power of his office. This will not only allow Cheney to solve the problem but it will provide President Obama an example of what a leader looks like and how a leader attacks a real catastrophe. Oh I know that Obama and everyone close to him hate Cheney, but Obama isn’t going to solve this problem on his own. Cheney has the executive experience, the temperament, and the contacts in industry and the military to coordinate the effort. Obama doesn’t have anyone like him in his inner circle and of course none of the cabinet secretaries have the skills, experience, or intellect to tackle this problem. Best of all, if Cheney can’t get the leak fixed, Obama will have someone he already hates to conveniently blame. I mean he can’t blame George W. Bush for everything.

If Dick Cheney accepts the task, to assure that he can focus on solving the problem and not waste effort sorting out government turf battles Obama should tell Steven Chu, Carol Browner, Janet Napolitano, and Ken Salazar to butt out. Order them to stay in their respective offices and come up with 8-10 new and unusual things to do with the paper clips in the top drawer of their desks. He should strictly prohibit them from addressing the Press or making any effort at all to solve the oil leak (that shouldn’t be hard for them as they haven’t done anything yet to help). This should provide a clear playing field for Cheney to solve the problem. In a few months the President should accept the resignations of Chu, Browner, Napolitano, and Salazar. Then President Obama should ask Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker of the House John Boehner for recommended replacements that they can work with. That could be President Obama’s second honestly bipartisan act as President.

Thursday, June 3, 2010

I wonder if it is possible to get a straight across swap – Barack Obama for Benjamin Netanyahu. I watched his press conference yesterday and he exuded leadership and patriotism. At a minimum Barack Obama could take man-up lessons from him. However I think that “Bibi” Netanyahu will make a better American President than Barack Obama because:

“Bibi” won’t apologize for his country, particularly when they are right

“Bibi” will be able to say “Radical Islamist Terrorist,” better yet he won’t have any trouble killing them by the bushel-full. He founded the Jonathan Netanyahu anti-Terror Institute (named for his brother who was killed fighting terrorists).

“Bibi” doesn’t view himself as a citizen of the world and will act in the best national interests of his country.

“Bibi” knows what it is like to actually fight for his country. Actual combat not community organizing.

“Bibi” has actually had a real job – at least twice – in addition to fighting in two of his country’s wars.

“Bibi” has spent a great deal of time in the United States and no doubt loves this country more than our current leader does.

I am glad to see that the Service Chiefs have closed ranks behind Commandant of the Marine Corps General James Conway and not wishy-washy political coward Admiral Mike Mullen. General Conway has been outspoken in his opposition to removing restrictions against homosexuals serving openly in the military. God Bless him for it. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” It is particularly disrespectful for the Obama administration to rush forward with a vote on the ban without benefit of the study that has been commissioned due to report out in December 2010.

I hope that these guys fight like hell. I don’t personally recall resistance like this from the Nation’s military before. There was an incident in the 1950s when rookie Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson under President Harry Truman cancelled a carrier program and tried to take all the airplanes out of the Navy. It is hard to imagine today, when the first question asked during an emergency is “Where are the carriers?” But Truman and Johnson were determined to radically change the structure of the U.S. Navy. The story is told in “Revolt of the Admirals” by Jeffery G. Barlow – it should be required reading now for our military leaders while the most radical President in our history tries to reengineer the Nation.

Like the Admirals of 1950, today’s military leadership owes it to the Nation and to the men and women who serve to protect the military from the irresponsible meddling of leftists.

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

I watched Obama administration Energy and Climate Change Czar Carol Browner on the news again today. She pointed out that “BP has a financial interest in keeping the [oil] flow rate numbers low.” Really? And don’t left wing lunatics like . . . . . well . . . . Carol Browner have a specific interest in making oil flow rates appear unusually high? Sort of like what her fellow Global Warming lunatics did to temperature studies to indicate that the World’s climate was warming when it really wasn’t. Right now, knowing what we know about the Global Warming hoax shouldn’t the very fact that you believe in Global Warming (like Secretary of Energy Steven Chu) eliminate you from consideration for a serious adult job?

I mean think about it – would you higher a teacher to teach geography if he believed that the World was flat? Would you vote for a guy who believed in the theories of Marx and Lenin when socialism has been so thoroughly discredited? Oh wait – we just did that in 2008 didn’t we?!?

I did wonder however at Browner’s insistence that they are “in charge” and that she and fruitcake Secretary Chu are issuing orders to BP. That doesn’t engender confidence in me. That’s like putting Ronald McDonald in charge of the obese children’s lunch program – “Super Fries anyone?” Can you imagine what it is like for real scientists and engineers at BP to have to explain to a nut-case like Chu (a guy who said we could stem Global Warming by painting the roofs and roads lighter colors) a complex procedure going on a mile beneath the surface of the water? I think that the last time I had such a challenge it was explaining why you don’t stick crap in a wall outlet to a two year old

Can you imagine BP trying to explain the origin of their flow figures to the environmental Nazis? Chu and his cronies probably started with the Exxon Valdez disaster oil volume, doubled it, and then divided it by the number of days they were given to boost President Obama’s sagging ratings. Then they probably threw in a few of those “tricks” that the Global Warming gurus at East Anglia are famous for rather than determine the actual flow at the pipe.

Knowing that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has “his boot on the neck” of BP, that roof and road painter Secretary of Energy Steven Chu is in the middle of the decision process, and that socialist climate alarmist Energy and Climate Change Czar Carol Browner has been “in charge” since “day one” doesn’t make me optimistic about success.